On unified Indonesia<\/p>\n
The recent letter by Masli Arman (Towards a more unified
\nIndonesia, Dec. 8, 1995), and indeed all of Masli's letters often
\nbear interesting comments for The Jakarta Post readers.<\/p>\n
His focus this time was the subject of transmigration programs
\nand how their successful implementation might be enhanced. I
\nwould like to point to several of his comments, and ask for
\nclarification because I am most unfortunate in not completely
\nunderstanding all his meanings.<\/p>\n
Masli correctly recognizes that race\/ethnicity, religion and
\nlanguage are tools used to rally people to the poles of power
\nstruggles. In doing so, he makes a strong case for the expansion
\nof Bahasa Indonesia use among all citizens, as a means of
\nunifying Indonesia.<\/p>\n
However, several of his positions confuse readers because they
\nare perhaps in conflict with the original theme of his letter.
\nFrom this and past letters, we have seen the writer call for not
\nonly the exclusion of words from other Indonesian ethnic
\nlanguages, but also foreign terms (chiefly English, though
\ncuriously not Arabic) and even Sanskrit words. His call to defeat
\nthe dilution of Bahasa Indonesia reveals itself to be confusing
\nbecause of the limits he wishes to impose on its natural
\nevolution.<\/p>\n
Masli points to three primordial elements as sources of social
\nconflicts: race\/ethnicity, religion, and language. While these
\nand other elements (e.g. extreme of political ideology or
\nnationalism) are often used by leaders to rally people to their
\ncause, perhaps they should be regarded merely as tools of
\nmanipulation, and not themselves fundamental elements in
\nconflict.<\/p>\n
A more in-depth analysis of conflicts will almost always lead
\nwise observers to an ultimate primordial element: power to
\ncontrol resources. Anthropological literature is full of
\nreferences to this. Hunter gatherers and simple agriculturists
\nwere often spurred into conflict as their land exceeded its
\ncarrying capacity.<\/p>\n
Advanced agricultural and industrial states gave numerical and
\ntechnological advantages which allowed (and continue to allow)
\n"advanced" cultures to steal the resources of those who remain
\n"undeveloped".<\/p>\n
Perhaps in our goal to avoid social conflict, we should learn
\nto hold at arms length our nonrational attachment to the
\naforementioned institutions of ethnicity, religion, etc., so that
\nwe avoid being swept up by them during times of conflict.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, as we learn to recognize conflict over resources
\nas the fundamental primordial element in social conflict, we
\ncould personally contribute to our mutual harmony by being less
\nattached to our aspirations for more and more possessions.<\/p>\n
In this instance, we in the "advanced" cultures have much to
\nlearn from the "undeveloped". Perhaps those undeveloped ones are
\nthe "lilies of the field", to which we could aspire emulation.<\/p>\n
STEPHEN G. KRECIK<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/on-unified-indonesia-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }